Police attack Australian over publication of raids story
The Australian newspaper is at the centre of a row about whether it should have self-censored today’s front page scoop about an alleged terrorist plot on Australian soil.
The newspaper broke the news of the allegations which police believed involved an attack on an Australian army base.
In the second paragraph of the story – by associate editor Cameron Stewart – the paper reported:
“Federal and state police, armed with search warrants, are poised to swoop on members of the suspected terror cell as early as this morning.”
An infuriated Victoria Police Commissioner Simon Overland told a press conference this morning that The Australian had caused “an unacceptable risk to the operation” because it was available on the streets of Melbourne from the early hours, potentially tipping off the alleged plotters. He said that the newspaper had been in discussions with the Australian Federal Police prior to today’s developments. And he pledged to investigate the leak.
Overland said: “The AFP negotiated with The Australian in terms of getting this story run today. I am concerned that despite these negotiations copies of that newspaper, I am told, were available on the streets of Melbourne at 1:30am.”
First editions of daily papers are usually available in Australia’s major cities from just before midnight.
Earlier today, Stewart told Sky News that although he could not say categorically, he thought the papers had not been available until later. Stewart said: “It was certainly not us being cowboys – far from it. A lot of effort was made to delay the appearance of the story until late in the piece.”
And The Australian this morning posted an article on its website defending its decision to publish. It said:
“In a complex logistical exercise, The Australian held back its coverage of the raids until later editions of the newspaper, which were not available for sale until after the raids, and altered its online publishing schedule to ensure Cameron Stewart’s exclusive reports did not appear on www.theaustralian.com.au, or anywhere else on the internet, until the raids had begun.”
And the article quotes editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell as saying: “Simon Overland is wrong. This is his sour grapes about not getting enough credit for Victorian police and him protecting himself against complaints from Victorian editors. “We held the story out of all early editions. No newspaper that was sold before the raids had any mention of them – they had Godwin Grech on the front page. Only papers that were sold at newsagents after the raid, and those destined for home delivery, had the raid story on page one.”
The row underlines the issue newspapers face when they land a scoop which also have implications for the safety of the public or individuals.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that New York Times reporter David Rohde had been kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In a controversial move, 40 news organisations around the world, along with Wikipedia, self censored the story for seven months until he escaped.
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
topics
Cameron Stewart
Chris Mitchell
journalism
journalists
Melbourne
News
newspapers
raids
terrorism
The Australian
If some blog had done this, Christian Kerr and the other anti-blog types at the Australian would’ve been crying foul. No excuse would’ve been acceptable.
User ID not verified.
So, Simon Overland and Chris Mitchell have nailed their colours to the mast and the question is in play: were the raid stories available anywhere before the raids happened? Ironic that this is happening on the same day as Utegate re-enters the headlines.
User ID not verified.
Were those papers with the story available to newsagents for home delivery earlier than the raids occured?
Could those home-delivery papers be read by anyone that happened to walk past the bundles?
Could, for instance, all-night cab drivers have had access to the story?
What time did those home-delivery papers reach newsagents?
What time were the raids?
Please answer Chris Mitchell.
User ID not verified.
Sounds similar to the Telegraphs “Masterchef” stuff up last month, only this time lives were at stake and it was a question of national security. At least they didn’t have quotes from the terrorists where they had to pretend to be arrested…
User ID not verified.
Something that concerns national security should not have been PRINTED prior to the actual raids.
While I am sure News Ltd staff probably sign some employment agreement not to disclose information, they are not subjected to security checks that our police and armed forces are.
Therefore, right back at the printing press is where ANY ONE of their staff could have leaked this.
Printers, delivery drivers, hell, even the junior that helps load the trucks with the papers could have leaked this.
This could have gone very wrong and a lot of people could have died.
FFS – where is the accountability to the people of this country?
User ID not verified.
AW,
The leak referred to is the original one that the Australian received about the raids themselves and co-ordinated publication (allegedly poorly) with Vic Rozzers and AFP.
Yes, the Australian should report what it’s told, in the national interest.
No, the Australian shouldn’t take actions that may compromise future police work.
Both aims were achieved.
The piece is (deliberately) thin on useful suspect tip-off and in my opinion gives scant specific warning even if posted through their letterboxes the night before.
The police seem more miffed about the leak itself than any perceived or actual compromise caused by the story breaking. No evidence has yet been provided that early editions contained the story, which one might have expected by now.
Indeed, today AAP reports Overland as back-tracking somewhat saying “It’s been successful from our point of view, from operational safety and achieving what we needed to achieve.”
The toys are back the respective prams, it seems.
User ID not verified.
Poor effort Australian,we want gone of these maggots,dont compromise piggys trying to catch them,its dangerous for cops and could lose possilbe convictions,but you know this,Editor Australian so why?
User ID not verified.